It is interesting what was on Luther's 95 thesis that he nailed to the church door. It was mostly against the selling of indulgences. Luther learned from his study of the Bible that salvation was a free gift from God. It did not need to be purchased from men who claimed the authority of God.

Here they are:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/95theses.htm

"
Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences Commonly Known as The 95 Theses
by Dr. Martin Luther

Out of love and concern for the truth, and with the object of eliciting it, the following heads will be the subject of a public discussion at Wittenberg under the presidency of the reverend father, Martin Luther, Augustinian, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and duly appointed Lecturer on these subjects in that place. He requests that whoever cannot be present personally to debate the matter orally will do so in absence in writing.
When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent", He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
Yet its meaning is not restricted to repentance in one's heart; for such repentance is null unless it produces outward signs in various mortifications of the flesh.
As long as hatred of self abides (i.e. true inward repentance) the penalty of sin abides, viz., until we enter the kingdom of heaven.
The pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties beyond those imposed either at his own discretion or by canon law.
The pope himself cannot remit guilt, but only declare and confirm that it has been remitted by God; or, at most, he can remit it in cases reserved to his discretion. Except for these cases, the guilt remains untouched.
God never remits guilt to anyone without, at the same time, making him humbly submissive to the priest, His representative.
The penitential canons apply only to men who are still alive, and, according to the canons themselves, none applies to the dead.
Accordingly, the Holy Spirit, acting in the person of the pope, manifests grace to us, by the fact that the papal regulations always cease to apply at death, or in any hard case.
It is a wrongful act, due to ignorance, when priests retain the canonical penalties on the dead in purgatory.
When canonical penalties were changed and made to apply to purgatory, surely it would seem that tares were sown while the bishops were asleep.
In former days, the canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution was pronounced; and were intended to be tests of true contrition.
Death puts an end to all the claims of the Church; even the dying are already dead to the canon laws, and are no longer bound by them.
Defective piety or love in a dying person is necessarily accompanied by great fear, which is greatest where the piety or love is least.
This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, whatever else might be said, to constitute the pain of purgatory, since it approaches very closely to the horror of despair.
There seems to be the same difference between hell, purgatory, and heaven as between despair, uncertainty, and assurance.
Of a truth, the pains of souls in purgatory ought to be abated, and charity ought to be proportionately increased.
Moreover, it does not seem proved, on any grounds of reason or Scripture, that these souls are outside the state of merit, or unable to grow in grace.
Nor does it seem proved to be always the case that they are certain and assured of salvation, even if we are very certain ourselves.
Therefore the pope, in speaking of the plenary remission of all penalties, does not mean "all" in the strict sense, but only those imposed by himself.
Hence those who preach indulgences are in error when they say that a man is absolved and saved from every penalty by the pope's indulgences.
Indeed, he cannot remit to souls in purgatory any penalty which canon law declares should be suffered in the present life.
If plenary remission could be granted to anyone at all, it would be only in the cases of the most perfect, i.e. to very few.
It must therefore be the case that the major part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of relief from penalty.
The same power as the pope exercises in general over purgatory is exercised in particular by every single bishop in his bishopric and priest in his parish.
The pope does excellently when he grants remission to the souls in purgatory on account of intercessions made on their behalf, and not by the power of the keys (which he cannot exercise for them).
There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.
It is certainly possible that when the money clinks in the bottom of the chest avarice and greed increase; but when the church offers intercession, all depends in the will of God.
Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed in view of what is said of St. Severinus and St. Pascal? (Note: Paschal I, pope 817-24. The legend is that he and Severinus were willing to endure the pains of purgatory for the benefit of the faithful).
No one is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much less of receiving plenary forgiveness.
One who bona fide buys indulgence is a rare as a bona fide penitent man, i.e. very rare indeed.
All those who believe themselves certain of their own salvation by means of letters of indulgence, will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.
We should be most carefully on our guard against those who say that the papal indulgences are an inestimable divine gift, and that a man is reconciled to God by them.
For the grace conveyed by these indulgences relates simply to the penalties of the sacramental "satisfactions" decreed merely by man.
It is not in accordance with Christian doctrines to preach and teach that those who buy off souls, or purchase confessional licenses, have no need to repent of their own sins.
Any Christian whatsoever, who is truly repentant, enjoys plenary remission from penalty and guilt, and this is given him without letters of indulgence.
Any true Christian whatsoever, living or dead, participates in all the benefits of Christ and the Church; and this participation is granted to him by God without letters of indulgence.
Yet the pope's remission and dispensation are in no way to be despised, for, as already said, they proclaim the divine remission.
It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, to extol to the people the great bounty contained in the indulgences, while, at the same time, praising contrition as a virtue.
A truly contrite sinner seeks out, and loves to pay, the penalties of his sins; whereas the very multitude of indulgences dulls men's consciences, and tends to make them hate the penalties.
Papal indulgences should only be preached with caution, lest people gain a wrong understanding, and think that they are preferable to other good works: those of love.
Christians should be taught that the pope does not at all intend that the purchase of indulgences should be understood as at all comparable with the works of mercy.
Christians should be taught that one who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does a better action than if he purchases indulgences.
Because, by works of love, love grows and a man becomes a better man; whereas, by indulgences, he does not become a better man, but only escapes certain penalties.
Christians should be taught that he who sees a needy person, but passes him by although he gives money for indulgences, gains no benefit from the pope's pardon, but only incurs the wrath of God.
Christians should be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they are bound to retain what is only necessary for the upkeep of their home, and should in no way squander it on indulgences.
Christians should be taught that they purchase indulgences voluntarily, and are not under obligation to do so.
Christians should be taught that, in granting indulgences, the pope has more need, and more desire, for devout prayer on his own behalf than for ready money.
Christians should be taught that the pope's indulgences are useful only if one does not rely on them, but most harmful if one loses the fear of God through them.
Christians should be taught that, if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence-preachers, he would rather the church of St. Peter were reduced to ashes than be built with the skin, flesh, and bones of the sheep.
Christians should be taught that the pope would be willing, as he ought if necessity should arise, to sell the church of St. Peter, and give, too, his own money to many of those from whom the pardon-merchants conjure money.
It is vain to rely on salvation by letters of indulgence, even if the commissary, or indeed the pope himself, were to pledge his own soul for their validity.
Those are enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid the word of God to be preached at all in some churches, in order that indulgences may be preached in others.
The word of God suffers injury if, in the same sermon, an equal or longer time is devoted to indulgences than to that word.
The pope cannot help taking the view that if indulgences (very small matters) are celebrated by one bell, one pageant, or one ceremony, the gospel (a very great matter) should be preached to the accompaniment of a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
The treasures of the church, out of which the pope dispenses indulgences, are not sufficiently spoken of or known among the people of Christ.
That these treasures are not temporal are clear from the fact that many of the merchants do not grant them freely, but only collect them.
Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, because, even apart from the pope, these merits are always working grace in the inner man, and working the cross, death, and hell in the outer man.
St. Laurence said that the poor were the treasures of the church, but he used the term in accordance with the custom of his own time.
We do not speak rashly in saying that the treasures of the church are the keys of the church, and are bestowed by the merits of Christ.
For it is clear that the power of the pope suffices, by itself, for the remission of penalties and reserved cases.
The true treasure of the church is the Holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
It is right to regard this treasure as most odious, for it makes the first to be the last.
On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is most acceptable, for it makes the last to be the first.
Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets which, in former times, they used to fish for men of wealth.
The treasures of the indulgences are the nets which to-day they use to fish for the wealth of men.
The indulgences, which the merchants extol as the greatest of favours, are seen to be, in fact, a favourite means for money-getting.
Nevertheless, they are not to be compared with the grace of God and the compassion shown in the Cross.
Bishops and curates, in duty bound, must receive the commissaries of the papal indulgences with all reverence.
But they are under a much greater obligation to watch closely and attend carefully lest these men preach their own fancies instead of what the pope commissioned.
Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.
On the other hand, let him be blessed who is on his guard against the wantonness and license of the pardon-merchant's words.
In the same way, the pope rightly excommunicates those who make any plans to the detriment of the trade in indulgences.
It is much more in keeping with his views to excommunicate those who use the pretext of indulgences to plot anything to the detriment of holy love and truth.
It is foolish to think that papal indulgences have so much power that they can absolve a man even if he has done the impossible and violated the mother of God.
We assert the contrary, and say that the pope's pardons are not able to remove the least venial of sins as far as their guilt is concerned.
When it is said that not even St. Peter, if he were now pope, could grant a greater grace, it is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.
We assert the contrary, and say that he, and any pope whatever, possesses greater graces, viz., the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as is declared in I Corinthians 12 [:28].
It is blasphemy to say that the insignia of the cross with the papal arms are of equal value to the cross on which Christ died.
The bishops, curates, and theologians, who permit assertions of that kind to be made to the people without let or hindrance, will have to answer for it.
This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult for learned men to guard the respect due to the pope against false accusations, or at least from the keen criticisms of the laity.
They ask, e.g.: Why does not the pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter's church, a very minor purpose.
Again: Why should funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continue to be said? And why does not the pope repay, or permit to be repaid, the benefactions instituted for these purposes, since it is wrong to pray for those souls who are now redeemed?
Again: Surely this is a new sort of compassion, on the part of God and the pope, when an impious man, an enemy of God, is allowed to pay money to redeem a devout soul, a friend of God; while yet that devout and beloved soul is not allowed to be redeemed without payment, for love's sake, and just because of its need of redemption.
Again: Why are the penitential canon laws, which in fact, if not in practice, have long been obsolete and dead in themselves,—why are they, to-day, still used in imposing fines in money, through the granting of indulgences, as if all the penitential canons were fully operative?
Again: since the pope's income to-day is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers?
Again: What does the pope remit or dispense to people who, by their perfect repentance, have a right to plenary remission or dispensation?
Again: Surely a greater good could be done to the church if the pope were to bestow these remissions and dispensations, not once, as now, but a hundred times a day, for the benefit of any believer whatever.
What the pope seeks by indulgences is not money, but rather the salvation of souls; why then does he suspend the letters and indulgences formerly conceded, and still as efficacious as ever?
These questions are serious matters of conscience to the laity. To suppress them by force alone, and not to refute them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian people unhappy.
If therefore, indulgences were preached in accordance with the spirit and mind of the pope, all these difficulties would be easily overcome, and indeed, cease to exist.
Away, then, with those prophets who say to Christ's people, "Peace, peace," where in there is no peace.
Hail, hail to all those prophets who say to Christ's people, "The cross, the cross," where there is no cross.
Christians should be exhorted to be zealous to follow Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hells.
And let them thus be more confident of entering heaven through many tribulations rather than through a false assurance of peace."

WS6

04-29-2012, 10:59

It is interesting what was on Luther's 95 thesis that he nailed to the church door. It was mostly against the selling of indulgences. Luther learned from his study of the Bible that salvation was a free gift from God. It did not need to be purchased from men who claimed the authority of God. [ ... ]

What are these "indulgences" to which you refer? How are they sold?

void *

04-29-2012, 11:24

What are these "indulgences" to which you refer? How are they sold?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Abuses

WS6

04-29-2012, 11:36

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Abuses

How does this address my questions to Vic?

Kingarthurhk

04-29-2012, 12:08

How does this address my questions to Vic?

He was merely attempting to help you with your confusion. He was simply being helpful.

Geko45

04-29-2012, 13:05

That's more of a Roman thing.

Ok, that was funny! Carry on!

:wavey:

WS6

04-29-2012, 14:32

He was merely attempting to help you with your confusion. He was simply being helpful.

Instead of being a wise guy, show Foxe's primary sources.

Kingarthurhk

04-29-2012, 14:44

Instead of being a wise guy, show Foxe's primary sources.

Wise, perhaps. A "wise guy" no, my Jesuit friend.

Tilley

04-29-2012, 15:48

Can someone please save me three hours of reading here and tell if theses guys hare bagging on us Catholics...again? :yawn:

Kingarthurhk

04-29-2012, 18:03

Can someone please save me three hours of reading here and tell if theses guys hare bagging on us Catholics...again? :yawn:

Actually, it is the converse.

Tilley

04-29-2012, 19:34

Actually, it is the converse.

What's this got to do with tennis shoes?

And how has the catholic church disturbed you in any way?

void *

04-30-2012, 14:48

Can someone please save me three hours of reading here and tell if theses guys hare bagging on us Catholics...again? :yawn:

My post was not intended to "bag on Catholics".

It just seems a little silly to me to pretend that you don't know what indulgences are, or that various humans abused them (by selling them for money, stating that they were indulgences for future sins (which to my understanding is not how they are actually defined by Catholic theology, although I'm not a Catholic so if that's wrong, set me straight), etc), or that this is (at least part of) what Luther was objecting to.

WS6

04-30-2012, 14:58

My post was not intended to "bag on Catholics".

It just seems a little silly to me to pretend that you don't know what indulgences are,

Who pretended that?

or that various humans abused them (by selling them for money, stating that they were indulgences for future sins

Cite your primary sources.

void *

04-30-2012, 15:23

Who pretended that?

Well, I suppose it's true that you weren't honestly asking. It still seems like a silly question, given that this all can be researched online in about 30 seconds or so with the right queries.

Cite your primary sources.

Is the Catholic Encyclopedia sufficient? It's not a primary source, really, but if you don't accept a book whose apparent purpose was to explain various things from a Catholic point of view as truthful, that will at least tell me a bit about your strategy of argument.

It may seem strange that the doctrine of indulgences should have proved such a stumbling-block, and excited so much prejudice and opposition. But the explanation of this may be found in the abuses which unhappily have been associated with what is in itself a salutary practice. In this respect of course indulgences are not exceptional: no institution, however holy, has entirely escaped abuse through the malice or unworthiness of man.

On the other hand, those who granted indulgences might be tempted to make them a means of raising money: and, even where the rulers of the Church were free from blame in this matter, there was room for corruption in their officials and agents, or among the popular preachers of indulgences.

In the Bull "Exsurge Domine", 15 June, 1520, Leo X condemned Luther's assertions that "Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful"; and that "Indulgences do not avail those who really gain them for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of God's justice "

Edit: In 1567 St. Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions. (I quote this here to make the point that, if no money was involved, why would there need to be a such a cancellation?)

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6095

I mean, it's pretty clear -> The Catholic church has as part of it's theology something called an "indulgence", human people (some of which were part of that organization) committed abuses of that doctrine, sometimes selling them for money, Luther objected to the entirety of the concept, along with some other things, that lead to the Reformation. The Church went and revoked some of the abusive indulgences in various councils, etc.

Edit: it seems a bit ridiculous to me that there's even argument here. Again, this is not to slam Catholics, it's just pretty clear that what happened, happened.

Schabesbert

04-30-2012, 16:30

I mean, it's pretty clear -> The Catholic church has as part of it's theology something called an "indulgence", human people (some of which were part of that organization) committed abuses of that doctrine, sometimes selling them for money, Luther objected to the entirety of the concept, along with some other things, that lead to the Reformation. The Church went and revoked some of the abusive indulgences in various councils, etc.

Edit: it seems a bit ridiculous to me that there's even argument here. Again, this is not to slam Catholics, it's just pretty clear that what happened, happened.
Yes. The concept of indulgences is perfectly valid.
"Selling" of indulgences is not valid, and has never been held by the Church to be valid.

Yes, some people abused indulgences by selling them, though not with the sanction of the Church.

WS6

04-30-2012, 16:51

My post was not intended to "bag on Catholics".

It just seems a little silly to me to pretend that you don't know what indulgences are
Who pretended that?
Well, I suppose it's true that you weren't honestly asking. It still seems like a silly question, given that this all can be researched online in about 30 seconds or so with the right queries.

Please let me worry about the underlying concerns that may exist in my questions to other people. With copies of The Handbook of Indulgences, Catechism of the Catholic Church, The Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, and Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma resting between keyboard and monitor; I feel confident that I can deal with the particulars of the doctrine.

or that various humans abused them (by selling them for money, stating that they were indulgences for future sins

Cite your primary sources.

Is the Catholic Encyclopedia sufficient? It's not a primary source, really, but if you don't accept a book whose apparent purpose was to explain various things from a Catholic point of view as truthful, that will at least tell me a bit about your strategy of argument.

I do quote the Catholic Encyclopedia on occasion and wikipedia even more often for the ease of immediately providing information in a neutral and noncontroversial context. Due to the nature of this thread I won't accept it.

[ … ](I quote this here to make the point that, if no money was involved, why would there need to be a such a cancellation?)

Proper distinctions are not being made by those who rail against the Catholic Church in this regard. Monetary gifts are certainly appropriate in connection with indulgences.

Well, that says a lot. It appears to me that you're obstinately demanding 'primary sources' merely as an argumentative device.

So let's go to a primary source.

If people were *not* abusing indulgences, and selling them, please explain why the Church felt the need, in the 21st session of the Council of Trent, to say:

THE NAME AND SERVICES OF QUESTORS OF ALMS IS ABOLISHED. THE ORDINARIES SHALL PUBLISH INDULGENCES AND SPIRITUAL GRACES. TWO OF THE CHAPTER SHALL WITHOUT FEE RECEIVE THE ALMS

and to indicate:

Since many remedies heretofore applied by different councils, those of the Lateran[30] and Lyons as well as that of Vienne,[31] against the pernicious abuses of questors of alms,[32] have in later times become useless, and since their depravity is, to the great scandal and complaint of the faithful, found to be daily so much on the increase that there seems to be no longer any hope of their amendment left, it is decreed that in all parts of Christendom their name and service be henceforth absolutely abolished and in no wise shall they be permitted to exercise such an office; any privileges granted to churches, monasteries, hospitals, pious places, and to any persons of whatever rank, state and dignity, or any customs, even though immemorial, notwithstanding. With regard to indulgences or other spiritual graces of which the faithful of Christ ought not on this account to be deprived, it is decreed that they are in the future to be announced to the people at suitable times by the local ordinaries aided by two members of the chapter. To these also the authority is given to collect faithfully and without fee the alms and charitable contributions offered them, so that all may understand that these heavenly treasures of the Church are administered not for gain but for piety.

The primary source here is "THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
Session XXI - The fifth under the Supreme Pontiff, Pius IV, celebrated on the sixteenth day of July, 1562", which appears to be reference in other documents as "Sess. XXI, c. ix" - unless you don't consider that a "primary source", either.

If these abuses weren't happening, under the "name and services" of "Questor of Alms", why would the council see the need to abolish such name and services?

WS6

04-30-2012, 17:06

[ ... ]If people were *not* abusing indulgences [ ... ]

Who made that statement?

void *

04-30-2012, 17:29

Who made that statement?

Umm, the council itself?

Again, quoting:

Since many remedies heretofore applied by different councils, those of the Lateran[30] and Lyons as well as that of Vienne,[31] against the pernicious abuses of questors of alms,[32] have in later times become useless, and since their depravity is, to the great scandal and complaint of the faithful, found to be daily so much on the increase that there seems to be no longer any hope of their amendment left, it is decreed that in all parts of Christendom their name and service be henceforth absolutely abolished and in no wise shall they be permitted to exercise such an office; any privileges granted to churches, monasteries, hospitals, pious places, and to any persons of whatever rank, state and dignity, or any customs, even though immemorial, notwithstanding. With regard to indulgences or other spiritual graces of which the faithful of Christ ought not on this account to be deprived, it is decreed that they are in the future to be announced to the people at suitable times by the local ordinaries aided by two members of the chapter.

This is the council aboloshing the "name and services of questors of alms", for "pernicious abuses", abolishing this, it was necessary to make sure that indulgences would not be deprived to "the faithful of Christ".

Are you not reading the same document I'm reading?

void *

04-30-2012, 17:39

Monetary gifts are certainly appropriate in connection with indulgences.

Did I say it was inappropriate? No. If you want to indicate that the Catholic church has decreed that there are appropriate ways to give the church money for indulgences, I will not argue.

What I am arguing is that by these documents, the Catholic church itself is admitting that there were abuses by members of the Catholic church. Some of that abuse involved obtaining money. If it was not abused, why did the church find it necessary to abolish one and give the other the authority to collect such alms "without fee"?

With regard to indulgences or other spiritual graces of which the faithful of Christ ought not on this account to be deprived, it is decreed that they are in the future to be announced to the people at suitable times by the local ordinaries aided by two members of the chapter. To these also the authority is given to collect faithfully and without fee the alms and charitable contributions offered them, so that all may understand that these heavenly treasures of the Church are administered not for gain but for piety.

From that document (not necessarily *just* the quote above), I get this:

Problem: people are abusing indulgences in such a way that makes the church look like it is trying to gain by giving them out. (you may have to read all the references to catch it all, like the fourth council of Lateran, etc - but they are all referenced in the 21st Council of Trent footnotes).
Problem: it's been going on for a while, attempts have made to correct it, those attempts have apparently failed. References are made to the efforts of other councils, if you go read those, you see decrees for abbots to not give out indulgences and the like.
Solution: dissolve the "name and services" of the "Questors of Alms" (who are stated to be those who are abusing), attempt to make sure that it is understood that any alms given are "administered not for gain but for piety", put this under two members of a chapter and the "local ordinaries", who shall collect these alms and gifts "without fee".

Now, please explain how, if there was not such a problem, it was necessary to decree such a dissolution and move the authority so that the people would not be deprived of indulgences and "other spiritual graces" "without fee".

kenpoprofessor

04-30-2012, 17:44

This is similar to watching Democrats eat their own :supergrin:.

So, who's religion is better then?

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

void *

04-30-2012, 17:57

This is similar to watching Democrats eat their own :supergrin:.

So, who's religion is better then?

Well, honestly, I really don't have a dog in that fight, it just bugs me that it's pretty clear what actually happened, yet WS6 is acting as though everybody has to prove from first principles what the church itself has admitted.

Paul7

04-30-2012, 20:43

... and the response (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm) from Headquarters.

From #2 of the RCC response:

2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.

What about Adolph Hitler, who was a baptized Catholic?

16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics.

I take it this means that those Christians who take bread and wine at communion are schismatics. Did Jesus Christ get it wrong at the Last Supper?

Firebob2917

04-30-2012, 21:25

Baptized, so what does that mean. You no longer sin. No. For by faith are ye saved. Not of works which baptism falls under. Yes as a person accepts Jesus as thier savior then baptism should be the next step but it a sign that the old man is dead and a new forgiven person comes up from the water. But without salvation first your just a wet lost person.

void *

05-01-2012, 09:30

From #2 of the RCC response:

2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.

What about Adolph Hitler, who was a baptized Catholic?

I can't imagine what sort of conflict you think is present there. What do the words "after baptism sin remains" mean to you?

I mean, I try to avoid getting into the theological conflicts - but this is just plain English language. It's pretty simple - under the above statement, Hitler gets baptized and sin remains in him.

Or are you just shooting for "Hitler" and "Catholic" in the same sentence?

Schabesbert

05-01-2012, 09:55

I can't imagine what sort of conflict you think is present there. What do the words "after baptism sin remains" mean to you?

I mean, I try to avoid getting into the theological conflicts - but this is just plain English language. It's pretty simple - under the above statement, Hitler gets baptized and sin remains in him.

Or are you just shooting for "Hitler" and "Catholic" in the same sentence?
No, that is one of the errors that the Church spoke against. Paul7 wasn't very clear in his post.

Here's Paul7's error (from the above wikipedia article):
Different Protestant denominations tend to see concupiscence as sin itself, an act of the sinner. The Catholic Church teaches that while it is highly likely to cause sin, concupiscence is not sin itself. Rather, it is "the tinder for sin" which "cannot harm those who do not consent" (CCC 1264 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1264)).

When Hitler was baptized, he was free from all sin. At that time.

void *

05-01-2012, 09:59

*nevermind, I grok, the list is the list of "errors". Please return to your theological argument and I will keep out of it ;)*

Paul7

05-01-2012, 10:12

I can't imagine what sort of conflict you think is present there. What do the words "after baptism sin remains" mean to you?

I mean, I try to avoid getting into the theological conflicts - but this is just plain English language. It's pretty simple - under the above statement, Hitler gets baptized and sin remains in him.

Or are you just shooting for "Hitler" and "Catholic" in the same sentence?

You are right, I completely misread that. I need to avoid GTRI late at night.......

Paul7

05-01-2012, 10:13

No, that is one of the errors that the Church spoke against. Paul7 wasn't very clear in his post.

Here's Paul7's error (from the above wikipedia article):
Different Protestant denominations tend to see concupiscence as sin itself, an act of the sinner. The Catholic Church teaches that while it is highly likely to cause sin, concupiscence is not sin itself. Rather, it is "the tinder for sin" which "cannot harm those who do not consent" (CCC 1264 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1264)).

When Hitler was baptized, he was free from all sin. At that time.

Just curious, where do you think Hitler is now?

Kingarthurhk

05-01-2012, 18:58

Just curious, where do you think Hitler is now?

Dead in his grave, awaiting resurrection and judgment.

Vic Hays

05-01-2012, 19:10

When Hitler was baptized, he was free from all sin. At that time.

How do you know? Baptism doesn't doesn't do anything without faith. If Hitler had faith at one time he sure lost it later.

Hitler was told about the prophesy in Daniel 2 which says the Roman Empire will never again be united. He stomped his foot and said that did not fit with his plans. Like Napoleon before him God was too much for even the most ambitious man.

Brasso

05-01-2012, 19:11

Don't let the facts get in the way.

Deny, obfuscate, and deny some more. That's the strategy. Heck, it's worked pretty good for the last 2000 years.